359 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

voteDC wrote...
You mean the grenades that you could place with precision and detonate when you needed to. Yep terrible compared to grenades that seem to go where they want and give the enemy plenty of time to avoid before they explode.

How terrible was it to be able to swap explosion types on the fly, rather than the far better being stuck to one type of grenade.

Sorry but you aren't going to convince me that the grenades in ME2 and ME3 are an improvement.

Being able to chuck them over things is, and they're not hard to aim. The main problem with ME1 grenades though is that there were so few of them to the point it was hard to ever justify using them (same with heavy weapons in ME2).

Most of the things that would be needed to elevate ME1 above the other two are largely cosmetic (more variety on planets, more character interaction - felt much closer to the squad in 2 and 3) but those things matter. It's a good game that possibly fails a little due to being too ambitious but it was the type of ambition that I appreciate.

[vonfantasy]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I don't downgrade a game based on how old it is. I like games of all generations. If I thought it was good in 95, I probably still consider it good today. Same goes for ME1.

I'm about to play Virmire and Ilos tonight......and I'm pumped. Never gets old.



Sure, there have been improvements across the board. But I still consider the original to be the best overall game in the series, due to many things that were completely absent in the sequels.

^this

My top 10 favourite video games of all time is Final Fantasy VII (1997), Crono Trigger (1995), Final Fantasy VI (1994), Mass Effect (2007), Mass Effect 2 (2010), Harvest Moon (1996), Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (2000), Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997), Shadow of the Colossus (2005), Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998)

Played all of them recently, still love them... I wouldn't say that I love these games because of nostalgia, I love these games because they have the greatest gameplay ever IMHO.

Modifié par vonfantasy, 05 avril 2013 - 03:23 .

[fr33stylez]

The inventory handling was a mess when it started to reach that 150 limit, but I wish they just corrected this issue, not remove inventory entirely. Framerate issues were also present on the Xbox version of ME1 - but this should obviously be fixed in the sequels. I found combat okay for ME1; it definately wasn't bad by any stretch. I didn't expect a Gears of War TPS for an RPG game (and ME2 & ME3 are still just 'okay' TPS).

The Mako and elevators were fine, if not needig some fine tuning. Overall I think the lack of the aspects in the sequel hurt ME2 and ME3.

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

ME1 had the best sense of exploration. And I had no problems with the Mako, elevators, or the inventory system. In fact I loved all three and I think the sequels are lesser because of the lack of them.

If loot and exploration are what you like about CRPGs, then it's natural to like the ME1 approach better. I'm indifferent to both unless they make RP sense for the particular game, so I didn't think these were losses in ME2 and 3.

By elevators I presume you're taling about the squadmate convos that happened in the elevators, right? I agree ME2 was somewhat weak in this material, probably because they blew the word budget on too many squadmates. ME3 delivered the content in other ways.

[Shaleist]

PSUHammer wrote...

Shaleist wrote...

PSUHammer wrote...

*  Wrex had no sense of humor in ME1
Was he supposed to be glib? He's a disillusioned merc from a dying species. The addition of HOPE for Krogans from ME1 to ME3 perks him up. Makes sense actually.

I kinda agree, kinda don't.

See, I don't think it makes sense.  He goes from uber serious, killer merc to wise cracking sidekick.  You can tell different writers got a hold of him.  Not saying it is bad, but his personality makes an unrealistic change through the three games.

At least Garrus was more consistent.  He was a little bland but just starting to go down his "Archangel" mindset.

Don't forget ME2 Wrex led Clan Urdnot *IE enjoying the spoils of success* ME3 Wrex is getting some serious Krogan tail after the cure. He's a baby-making machine. I know that sort of 'responsibility' usually puts me in a better mood.  When do you think was the last time ME1 Wrex got any action?

[Ecrulis]

I love all three games (of course all three games have their problems), I'd have to say I think all around I enjoy ME2 the most, I find the combat in one boring plus I have an extreme hatred for the Mako (can't really explain why but something about the way the thing moves drives me upo a wall, get it? I'm punny!)

Speaking of 3 I would have LOVED a little more exploration, using the hammerhead, maybe doing things like actually having to go down and rescue the people from Exo-Geni on Feros and other things like that.

[TemplePhoenix]

My main problem with ME1 (moreso than slightly clunky combat, cluttered inventory and TRYING TO GET THE %$£&ING MAKO OVER STEEP HILLS) is that, on Xbox at least, it crashes so frequently. Like, all the time frequently. Like, save before opening a door anywhere just to be safe frequently.

Still love the game, though; love all three, just in different ways.

[Froswald]

I have to admit, I loved ME1's inventory/weapon system out of all 3 games. It just felt so, 'Alright, finally got my HWMPSX X (or whatever) now I just need those polonium rounds and I'll be set'.

I'm a big story fan, but whoo I love me a game with a good gearing up system. Not just a lot of gear, but useful and diverse gear (which ME1 did fail at, the weapons eventually overlapped). I just liked the possibility of ramping up weapons to be godlike (with some effort/time) like the sniper rifle with scram rails and HE rounds, aka 'Handheld Mass Accelerator Cannon'.

But the mako, THE MAKO. I have never loved a vehicle in a game as much as I loved the Mako, I truly enjoyed those planet environments. It felt like I was actually exploring a foreign, alien planet without a clue what may wait on the other side of the hill, or in that valley (****ing thresher maws). That's what drew me into the series, the feeling of exploration. Not simple things like 'Here are 3 areas with hidden secrets, find them all before time runs out!' but actual exploration.

I felt so happy when I found an unlisted cache planetside, and the little tidbits like the prothean ruin were excellent. It isn't difficult either, just have some object with some text on a pop-up. Those pop-up texts were my favorite thing questwise. Sure ME2 had the well done character development and a good (albeit a self-contained) story, and ME3 had the combat improvements as well as graphical enhancements, ME1 is just, well it'll tide me over until I get on a spaceship IRL and rocket to asteroid minin'.


EDIT: I saw an earlier post about ME1 failing in one regard by being too ambitious. I agree, but I love that about those types of games. Be bold, go for that odd idea you have! Nothing draws me in more than a set path (or paths) the devs of a game, writer of a book, director of a movie have (and they stick to it). That coupled with exploration is the reason why I loved ME1, and I mean I loved ME1 as much as I loved the first reading of ASOIAF.

Modifié par Froswald, 05 avril 2013 - 08:57 .

[TemplePhoenix]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That people are claiming that ME2 and 3 are better games than the original by virtue of their being competent third person shooters is actually pretty telling. And also kind of depressing!

Um... the series has always been part-RPG, part-third person shooter, even if the weighting of the two alters quite dynamically as the trilogy goes on. People have different tastes, so from their point of view, whichever aspect of the game they enjoy the most is going to be more important to them.

(Never understood the hate of RPGers for shooterfans, and vice versa. What's wrong with liking both?)

[voteDC]

Reorte wrote...


Being able to chuck them over things is, and they're not hard to aim. The main problem with ME1 grenades though is that there were so few of them to the point it was hard to ever justify using them (same with heavy weapons in ME2).

Never bothered me as you could place them on a wall behind the enemy or the floor to the side of them. You had to think how you'd use them.

How sparingly they gave them out though definitely was annoying, especially at how invaluable they were in some of the tougher fights.

Modifié par voteDC, 05 avril 2013 - 09:22 .

[David7204]

ME has it's share of cringe-worthy and clumsily done moments in the story. Not the gameplay. The story. The gameplay is much worse across the board. I would scrap the Mako 'exploration' missions without hesitation.

Saren and Benezia are not anywhere as good of villains as people claim. Benezia's lines in particular are just corny as all hell. Saren sounds way, way too much like the Borg. All three of the fights between them are lousy. Way worse then the fights with Leng.

Frankly, I'm not at all impressed with all people shilling 'EXPLORATION!!!!!' as if ME 2 and ME 3 are somehow at fault for focusing less on that. That's the way it is for literally every fantasy and science fiction story in existence - you spend time establishing the world and characters, then you move on the conflict. Cookie-cutter planets and recycled levels are not that great. The ME 1 Citadel is really not that great at all. ME 1 established it's atmosphere more through characters than setting. The setting was decent, but nowhere near as good as something like Fallout 3.

Modifié par David7204, 05 avril 2013 - 09:29 .

[Han Shot First]

ME1 also has the largest plot hole in the series.

Saren attacks Eden Prime to access a Prothean beacon, which will tell him where to find the Conduit.

The problem: Saren is a Spectre with indoctrinated Asari commandos in his service, and didn't need the Conduit to transport either them or himself to the Presidium. He also already had a Prothean beacon on Virmire.

The entire plot of ME1 kicks off when Saren attacks a colony he didn't need to access a Prothean beacon he already had, to find the location of a Conduit he didn't require.

There are a couple areas in which Mass Effect 1 was superior to the sequels, but story was not one of them.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 05 avril 2013 - 09:45 .

[grey_wind]

The fact that people can claim ME1 had a good plot with a straight face makes me sad. Sure, it had a few good plot twists and plot developments, but the overall plot was terrible. It's miles better than 2's and 3's plots, but that's like saying camel dung is better than cow dung and horse dung because it doesn't smell as bad.

[robertthebard]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Shaleist wrote...

It's OK. We're all friends here.

No, we're not. You people have differing opinions and therefore must be enemies. Back on topic, I was never a fan of the faux enemy variety of the first two games. I think ME2 was the worst in that regard, though ME's poor AI compounded the issue. Faction variety, on the other hand...

Oooo, he said "You people"...

[MegaSovereign]

AlanC9 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

ME1 had the best sense of exploration. And I had no problems with the Mako, elevators, or the inventory system. In fact I loved all three and I think the sequels are lesser because of the lack of them.

If loot and exploration are what you like about CRPGs, then it's natural to like the ME1 approach better. I'm indifferent to both unless they make RP sense for the particular game, so I didn't think these were losses in ME2 and 3.

By elevators I presume you're taling about the squadmate convos that happened in the elevators, right? I agree ME2 was somewhat weak in this material, probably because they blew the word budget on too many squadmates. ME3 delivered the content in other ways.

I didn't think ME1's CRPG aspects were perfect. I just wish they were streamlined rather than outright removed. I feel like Bioware's definition of "fixing" something is to cut it altogether.


After seeing what a hit open-world RPGs like Skyrim are and considering the fact that next gen consoles will be advanced enough to handle games that have a huge scope, I'm sure Bioware will try to take a more CRPG approach to the next ME.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 05 avril 2013 - 10:00 .

[TemplePhoenix]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Come on now, mine was a post made to highlight the folly of using third person shooting as the only  measure of each game!

Ah, okay; ignore me then. Apologies. 

[Megaton_Hope]

As far as shooters and RPGs, I think that RPGs and, for the most part, shooter-RPGs appeal to people who want to customize the experience, while straight shooters appeal more to people who want to be able to compare skills. Since aside from choosing equipment off a list, you generally don't make long-term plans for your character's development, and eventually everybody has all the options you have.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That people are claiming that ME2 and 3 are better games than the original by virtue of their being competent third person shooters is actually pretty telling. And also kind of depressing!

Here's a funny for you, I don't play shooters as a rule.  That is the reason that I didn't even buy ME 1 until shortly after ME 3 was released, didn't buy ME 2 until I'd played ME 1, and didn't buy ME 3 until I'd played ME 2.  That said, I bought ME 1, played it, liked it, and bought ME 2, etc etc.  I have stated this before, and checking my post history will verify it, but the hardest part of going back to ME 1 for me is game mechanics, which have drastically improved since ME 1, barring the one button does all thing in ME 3 anyway.

The inventory "system" in 1?  Hated it, on PC and hated it.  Where's the "sell all" button?  Why wasn't "loot" from kills placed directly into the inventory, instead of having it's own cache?  Please explain, as well, how you could conceivably carry 150 suits of armor.  This is handled much better in the later installments.  I much preferred the system introduced in 2, and refined in 3.  Note that there is a lot more to game mechanics than "shooter", because had I felt that the ME series was more shooter than RPG, I would have never purchased 2 or 3.  Despite the rampant "you must be a CoD fan" that gets thrown around, I don't own any CoD games, at all.  I do, however, own 2 copies of Baldur's Gate, 2 copies of Icewind Dale, 1 copy of Icewind Dale 2, 3 copies of Baldur's Gate 2, including a Collector's Edition, and a couple of copies of NWN's.  I even own NWN 2, and it's expansions, even though I didn't buy the expansions until I got one of them for a dollar in a bargain bin.

I have also commented, more than once, that I don't do the ME 3 MP because it's twitch gaming, which is essential to a pure shooter, and I don't do twitch gaming.

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...

The entire plot of ME1 kicks off when Saren attacks a colony he didn't need to access a Prothean beacon he already had, to find the location of a Conduit he didn't require.

Or maybe he didn't get the intact beacon until after the attack on Eden Prime, maybe?

And therefore didn't realize he didn't need the Conduit until his Spectre stayus had been revoked.  At whichpoint, yeah he needs teh Conduit.

The assumption here is that Saren wasn't piecing together information as well.  Saren is not TIM, who had clearly already read the script and knew exactly what was on the other side of the Omega IV relay...

Modifié par iakus, 05 avril 2013 - 10:18 .

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...



I can't disagree with any of that Robert - I’m glad you enjoyed the trilogy. That said, I would say that we should be mindful not to think of ‘game mechanics' only as third person shooting (what of conversation, exploration, choice etc.)? In any case, which was your favourite game of the three and have you tried Alpha Protocol yet?

If I had to pick one, I'd have to say 3.  With 1 coming in in a tight second.  I didn't like the premise of 2, working for Cerberus after the events in ME 1, nor did I care much for the Lazarus DeM.  I haven't tried Alpha Protocol at all.

[Tron Mega]

grey_wind wrote...

The fact that people can claim ME1 had a good plot with a straight face makes me sad. Sure, it had a few good plot twists and plot developments, but the overall plot was terrible. It's miles better than 2's and 3's plots, but that's like saying camel dung is better than cow dung and horse dung because it doesn't smell as bad.

camel dung doesnt smell bad?